Alito

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

I think the biology reality gives the choice to the woman, she's carrying the child, and what she does to herself impacts the fetus as well.
Can a husband require his wife to get prenatal care? Make her not drink?

Making my point for me? Since the man has no control over how the woman treats the child she's carrying, which could be abusive, why should he be expected to bear the increased financial burden of caring for an ill child because the woman was irresponsibile?

I have to doubt that you would accept the scenario where the man uses economic coercion to force a woman to abort. Of course we could write laws that allow it, I think enforcement would be an impossibility.

Of course not. This is why I'm saying my argument is completely rhetorical. But it doesn't change the fact that it is a situation where the man has no control over what the woman chooses to do, yet he is held financially responsible for her decision. Yes, I realize he participated in getting her pregnant, but so did she (of course, so no one jumps on me, this excludes rape).